Windows 8 is Doomed….Posted: December 15, 2011
I like patterns and who doesn’t? Patterns are an everyday part of life. It’s almost impossible to not see a pattern anywhere you look. Whether it’s a number, shape, color, or cloth pattern; you’re bound to see them any and everywhere. We are taught patterns from early childhood and see them so often that we hardly even notice them anymore. Though, there is one pattern; however, along with many others Ihave noticed over the years. It is the Microsoft Windows pattern. This pattern is about how every other operating system (OS) Microsoft (MS) puts out is fantastic and the ones in between them are about as awesome as an ant colony in your bed living off the cracker crumbs left by Betty White when she spent the night. Our journey will start off with Windows 3.1 and end up at the upcoming MS OS, 8. We will skip several versions that MS put out, either prior to, after, or in between because they were upgrades or updated versions. Such as Windows 2000 was an OS version geared toward the enterprise. So, don’t get all bent out of shape MS fans.
Though, this OS had a predecessor it is what most considers to be the first publically usable OS. Which almost guaranteed it would be awesome. Its release, in early 1992, had many features that would evolve over the years into what we use today. Microsoft had adopted a TrueType font system, from Apple, which didn’t do much for the consumer but made it easier for font developers to, well, develop fonts and those fonts can still be used in Windows 7. Probably the best way to describe Windows 3.1 is to say that your basic Casio calculator is to a Texas Instruments Scientific calculator as a word processor is to Windows 3.1 (but with Minesweeper!) This OS may not have been the first from MS but it certainly started the MS monopoly! I mean…revolution.
3.1 = Good
Ah yes, Microsoft’s Godzilla to Apple’s Tokyo. At least that’s what Mr. Gates wanted the world to think. The fact of the matter is that Windows 95 was 3.1 wearing church clothes. Microsoft spent $300 million promoting this “latest and greatest” and someone spent hundreds printing bumper stickers comparing it to Apple’s OS that was 6 years older. Six years isn’t that old, but in the computer world, it’s Strom Thurman. Granted, 95 was the most successful OS ever created to date and sold like penicillin in Vegas, but compared to other OS’s, at that time, it was the Sam’s Choice. Microsoft really didn’t have the “Windows Update” in place yet, so in order to get your newly purchased software to work correctly you would have to wait for MS to release a newer OS. You may have noticed the words “plug and play” from time to time. What this refers to is if you bought a new keyboard, monitor, etc., then all you should have to do is plug it in and that would be it. Windows 95 wasn’t that nice. It had, what most like to call, “plug and pray”. This is exactly what it reads like; plug it in and, “Please, God. Please, God, work. Please, please, please. Damn it”.
95 = Bad
Windows 98 is what 95 should have been. It was 110% more user friendly and had many more options and customizations. Windows 98 was, what I liked to think, would be the future of MS OS’s. With it came some lasting power. Previous OS’s from MS were difficult not to upgrade to when the next one came out. You were almost forced to keep up with the times because, as I stated before, MS didn’t have the “Windows Update” down yet. Not so with 98. Microsoft gave you the opportunity and support to download updates and keep your OS running smooth. If you didn’t want to upgrade when the next OS came out you didn’t have to. Thankfully, that was the case with Windows Millennium Edition.
98 = Good
Windows Millennium Edition (ME)
Windows ME was reportedly the best OS MS ever put out – that continually crashed. To put it in better perspective, it was as stable as Lindsey Lohan on a Jack Daniel’s Whiskey brewery tour. It was near impossible to have more than two programs open and running without getting some kind of error message. What’s worse; programs that could and did work fine on Windows 98 and XP usually failed on ME. That’s not to say that ME was the worst of the worst but if it was on fire and I had water, I’d drink it.
ME: Let it burn While Drinking Water
Seriously, this is the Simpson’s of OS’s. It has been around for 10 years and we still have almost 2 and a half years left of support. To give you a better perspective, Mike Vick has a better chance of surviving a PETA rally than any OS has of surviving 10+ years. XP wasn’t the end all be all of OS’s until MS came out with Service Pack 2. Before that XP probably would have been around for as long as David Duke at a Black Panthers meeting. It also helps that the mass majority of us know XP– it’s like a part of the family.
XP = The best there is. The best there was. The best there ever will be.
Look, when it comes to Windows Vista we all know it sucks. Vista was a rushed OS that was a resource hog. It took incredibly way too much time to do anything. It was almost like your computer was running on a 56k modem all over again. There are some people I’ve come across that do like the OS but they are few and far between.
Vista = God awful
Windows 7 is Olivia Wilde handing you a ham sandwich, a frosty beverage, and asking if you would rather play golf or watch the game. It has the stability of XP, a fantastic user interface and it’s visually pleasing. Much like my caparison in the first sentence, it’s almost perfect. I say almost because I have to make it PG. I haven’t really run into very many notable problems with 7. If it can stick around for 10+ years, like XP, it could definitely knock XP off its pedestal.
7 = Olivia Wilde handing you a ham sandwich, a frosty beverage, and asking if you would rather play golf or watch the game.
Now, I’m not going to say Windows 8 is doomed for failure; it may very well be Jaws instead of Jaws the Revenge, but if history has taught us anything MS will release something to keep the masses happy. Personally, I don’t think we are ready for it. It’s going to be touch screen oriented and, though our phones and tablets are that way, I don’t believe we’re economicly ready to dish out the money for full fledged touch screen monitors. Of course I could be wrong…